liturgies together, their resemblance is found to be most striking; and it is impossible to deny that they have proceeded from one common source, namely, the ancient liturgy of the Egyptian church before the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. For here we have two liturgies agreeing in substance and order, both professing by their titles to be derived from the rites of the Egyptian church; both differing in order from the liturgies of all other churches in the east and west; and used by two bodies of men in Egypt, who have held no communion with each other since the council of Chalcedon.

The existence and use of the liturgy of St. Mark amongst the orthodox of Egypt is proved by the testimony of Mark, orthodox patriarch of Alexandria in the twelfth century, in his Questions to Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch. He inquired “whether the liturgies read in the parts “ of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and said to have “ been written by James ó àdel póleos, and by Mark, are to be received by the holy catholic church, or nom."

Theodore Balsamon himself says, in his Commentary on the Thirty-second Canon of the council in Trullo, that the liturgy of St. Mark was for the most part used by the church of Alexandria". It is true, that he mistakes it for the liturgy of James, as appears by the context. But his testimony establishes

66

66

η αι περί τα μέρη της Αλεξ- Gr. Rom. L. V. ανδρείας, και των Ιεροσολύμων η οι δε Αλεξανδρείς λέγουσιν αναγινωσκόμεναι λειτουργίαι, είναι (scilicet, liturgiam) και και λεγόμεναι συγγραφήναι πα- του αγίου Μάρκου ή και χρώνται ρά των αγίων αποστόλων Ιακώ- ως τα πολλά. Balsamon in Bov toở đðeApoéov, kai Múpkov, Can. 32. Concil. Trull. Bedertaí clol tñ åylą kai kalodesņ vereg. Concil. tom. i. p. 193. Ékk.noią i oč; Leunclav. Jus

the fact, that St. Mark's liturgy was used in the twelfth century by the orthodox of Alexandria, though he was not acquainted with the nature of that liturgy

The use of this liturgy by the orthodox of Alexandria may be traced further back, I think, by the testimony of the ancient writer of the seventh or eighth century already alluded to.

“ St. Jerome,” he says, “affirms that St. Mark chanted the course

(or liturgy, as appears by his preceding remarks) “ which is now called the Irish course; and after “him Gregory Nazienzen, whom Jerome affirms to “ be his master, St. Basil, brother of the same St.

Gregory, Anthony, Paul, Macarius or John, and “ Malchus chanted according to the order of the 66 Fatherso Here this author appears plainly to me to refer to the Egyptian liturgies bearing the name of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil, as I have remarked elsewhere. Now, though he speaks of two of the liturgies used by the Monophysites of Egypt, he does not speak of Cyril's, which is the third : but he speaks of St. Mark as being the first institutor of the Egyptian rites. And this seems plainly to refer to the custom of the orthodox Alexandrians, who did not give their liturgy the name of Cyril, (though it was the same as Cyril's Coptic liturgy,) but of St. Mark; preferring the name of its first institutor to that of Cyril, who, according to the

“ Beatus Hieronymus ad- Et beatus Basilius frater ipsius firmat, ipsum cursum qui dici- sancti Gregorii, Antonius, Pautur præsente tempore Scotto- lus, Macharius vel Johannes, et rum, beatus Marcus decantavit, Malchus, secundum ordinem et post ipsum Gregorius Nan- Patrum decantaverunt.” Spelzenzenus, quem Hieronymus man. Concilia, tom. i.

a

Monophysites, “perfected the liturgy of Mark.” We may perhaps regard this testimony as sufficient to shew, that a liturgy of the orthodox of Alexandria was called by the name of St. Mark in the seventh century, as we know it was in the twelfth.

Now this appellation in itself is a proof that the orthodox Egyptians thought the liturgy to which they gave it, the original liturgy of Alexandria. And the circumstance of the Monophysites calling one of their liturgies by the name of Cyril is a proof that they esteemed it to have been the liturgy of Alexandria. And, as I said before, Mark's and Cyril's liturgies differ from all other liturgies in the world, except the Ethiopic, but agree with each other.

The liturgy of the Ethiopians adds strength to these arguments. Ethiopia was converted to Christianity by Frumentius about A. D. 330, and he was ordained bishop of Ethiopia by the blessed pope Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria'. At the schism in the Alexandrian patriarchate in the time of Dioscorus, and the council of Chalcedon, the Ethiopians followed the example of the Copts, and adhered to the Monophysite patriarch. Of course the origin of the Ethiopic liturgy is to be traced to Alexandria, from whence were derived their Christianity and their ecclesiastical orders. We should expect, then, to find a conformity between the most ancient Ethiopian liturgy and the Alexandrian rite. And the most ancient Ethiopic liturgy agrees exactly in

P Socrates, Hist. lib. i. c. 19. doret. lib. i. c. 23. Ludolf. Sozomen. lib. ii. c. 24. Theo- Hist. Ethiop. lib. iii. c. 2.

order and substance with the liturgies of Cyril and Mark, and with no others.

This Ethiopic liturgy appears plainly to be an independent rite; that is, although it received some additions from the Alexandrian rite in the fifth or sixth centuries, yet it did not receive all the additions that were made to the Alexandrian liturgy. And if so, it is highly improbable that its original order and substance were transposed or relinquished. For had such a transposition or alteration taken place, in order to suit the Alexandrian liturgy, then, surely, parts of that liturgy which were very celebrated and very excellent, would not have been omitted, as we find they are'. Now, if, on the hy

9 I assume that the general and in the fifth century were canon (as it is called) of the used, not only at Alexandria, Ethiopians is their oldest li- but in all other churches, exturgy, because it does not ap- cept that of Ethiopia. Cyprian pear to bear the name of any speaks of these words, and apostle or saint, and yet is Augustine said, “Every day

, more used and regarded than throughout the whole world any of the others, though they the human race reply, that have the names of apostles and they lift up their hearts unto famous saints. And the pre- the Lord. De Ver. Relig. sumption from this is, that they Chrysostom testifies the use of esteem it to be their principal these forms at Antioch ; Cyril and most ancient liturgy. It

pothesis of Renaudot, Basil's liturgy had been the original liturgy of Alexandria, then the same order as Basil's would have originally prevailed in Ethiopia, and then (since the Ethiopian liturgy does not agree with the liturgy of Basil, but with those of Cyril and Mark) they must have altered the substance and order of their ancient liturgy. But if the liturgy of the Ethiopians suffered so material an alteration in order and substance, how highly improbable is it, that they would have omitted to introduce some of the best portions of the liturgies which it was altered to suits !

If, then, it has appeared that there are strong objections to thinking that the Ethiopian liturgy originally exhibited a different order from what it does now, (although it may have received many additions and interpolations in the course of ages,)—if this has appeared, then we must consider it as a proof that the liturgies of Mark and Cyril are, as they profess and appear to be, derived from the ancient Alexandrian rite which prevailed in the time of Athanasius. For these liturgies agree in order and substance with the Ethiopian general canon, which appears to have been an independent rite from its origin, and to have been derived from Alexandria in the time of Athanasius, A.D. 330.

Much controversy has been excited by the liturgy

a

doubt the liturgies prove, that amongst whom Chrysostom, in the fifth century, not only Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus, the Egyptian, but every other and Cyprian, are well known. church, used the Lord's Prayer * See Liturg. Cyrilli, Renauat the end of the prayer of dot, p. 46. 50; rci, 144. consecration or canon. Many 159. Compare Liturg. Æthiop. Fathers also of the fourth and Renaudot, p. 513. 518, third centuries mention this;